I think the same: some aspects of math are made up systems and we explore the consequences but others come from pattern matching and simplifying. For example the concept of a perfect circle could have arisen from our brains matching common traits of circles, which was then formally defined by a point and radius and further consequences then explored.
However this in no way comes close to answering the unanswered questions of either side of the debate. Sine and cosine are in basic geometry, circles, rotation, oscillation, wave dynamics and quantum mechanics. How can that be? How can they all be connected if we made it up?
In a sense, all of mathematics builds on 1+1=2 which implies that our made up counting system just happened to have consequential rules that perfectly describe everything. That is highly improbable.
I view mathematics as a distillation or simplification of real life: Consider all questions in the ridiculous debate answered, and try not to hate me because I'm brilliant :P
Time to write a philosophy paper :-)
Yeah, I wasn't so impressed with that section. I don't consider the existence of platonic entities as a serious viewpoint, nor is the polar philosophical opposite.
I did like the analogy about writing the first page of a book, then the book writing the rest itself.